Midrange and high-end graphics card will get more expensive

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jan 4, 2018.

  1. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,188
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    GPU:
    -
    Yeah i'm there with you on that list, i don't understand it, only because...well...where did the list come from? every place i mentioned before were ones i had actually gone to and made sure were actually still alive...

    My only point on what i personally had posted was the fact that i have heard from many canadian friends that there are no places for them to buy electronics from other then amazon and newegg, and that has always bugged me when that is said simply because i know that is untrue.

    The fact that you guys are, in general, overpriced, is an issue. It's an issue in every place it is done, specifically, if there is no reason for it, such as import costs and whatnot to drive up the cost.

    AKA, USD. And quite frankly, aside from some computer components, gold as well. Gold may be physical, but its price is purely based off of desire value. But USD (and many other currencies) are not based off of gold, or anything, for that matter. The paper money is worthless by itself, the coins are borderline worthless by themselves other then scrap value. Overall, money itself does not have any value, it only has a desire value.

    As to the rest of your comments, i would say you are mostly correct if it were just like the previous times bitcoin rose in value. Bitcoin has crashed, what, 3 times? Those previous times, no much else had any value or interest at all. It's not just bitcoin this time. It would require every single cryptocurrency to crash and burn for what you're saying will happen, happen. And if bitcoin crashes, i'm sure it'll take some with it, but all? We've already seen in the recent, relative crash where bitcoin went from 20K to around 13K, that affected a lot of coins, but not all. Decred, as an example, is at an all time high and continues to increase. Siacoin, another example, is skyrocketing in value. Those are only two coins, what about the other 1300+?

    I'm not saying what you're saying "won't" happen, the problem is, there's no point trying to predict a future you can't predict. There's no point for you saying it'll end, and there's no point for me saying it definitely won't. Put simply, no one knows what will or won't happen. If they did, specifically the nay sayers, bitcoin would have crashed last march, never gone past 1K, died in 2011, etc. etc. etc. It's completely pointless to say one way or another what will or won't happen.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2018
  2. Dellers

    Dellers Active Member

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    MSI 2080 Ti Trio
    Definitely happened. Cards are rising in price here right now, many by 5%+ from one day to another. Most of the 1080 Tis are out of stock as well. I'm definitely not buying a Pascal at these prices since these cards are getting "old", but will wait for Volta.
     
  3. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    @Aura89 : What I am writing about is reason for its existence.
    People who have no intention to use it as currency and buy it for profit are destroying it in long run.

    If I ever want to use crypto to buy something with it. I have no reason to own it now. Why should I care if I get 0.01 of coin per $100? Or if I get 3 coins for $100? It does not matter. On other side of transaction, there is person who expects coins in real world transferable value of $100, Which I paid anyway.

    Then there is comparison to USD you made. It is bit wrong. While USD is not covered by gold, grass, ... whatever. It is covered by purpose. Purpose of easing trade. We no longer trade 8 chickens for piggy. We have money.
    Who gets USD for purpose of waiting for its value to go up and transfer back to different currency? (Happens, but mostly efficient only for inside guys.)
    Cryptos hijacked by greed are no longer serving as currency, they are just object of greed.

    Back in day, there were people using it for trading. If you have coin with $50 external value, and suddenly every week it goes up $10 in average. Will you continue buying potatoes with your coins? Or will greed win and you sit on all of them and wait? Where will be your high enough?
    Some people did hit their high and went to realize profit. (Nothing else than profit. Bought in with money, left by getting money.)
    When will people start using it as currency?

    What I have in mind is that I care little about its value. I am interested in its future. At some point value saturates. At some point people will want to turn it back into government issued currencies. Or will want to buy something directly with crypto.
    Depending on level of trust into its future and available trading commodities... there are different futures coming. Will it find some fragile balance between those who have it from greed and those who want to use it?

    I do not know, but greed is powerful. And I expect that at some point of mass hysteria, most of people holding them will bail out. Leaving only dust.
    Why? Bacause as great many want to get out, value will go down. What will psychology of people who want to use it properly as currency do?
    "Should I sell? Should I keep even if I am now losing 2~5% of value per day? Dream of this currency is almost here. Am I willing to sacrifice 50% of current value before it stabilizes? Should I sell now and buy once it stabilizes after crash? Am I part of solution or problem?"
    In described situation, those who decide to solve problem have to pay to those who caused it. "Not very nice." I say.

    There is inherent design flaw. It is: "Supply/Demand"
    Because that allows for value spiking.
    Solution:
    - participants generating virtually unlimited amount of hashes into shared database (distributed DB similar/same to already in use)
    - generated hashes are not rewarded, not owned by anyone, just end up being usable by being "lent" from DB (backed by real world economy)
    - Fixed value per hash (welcome to controlled economy)
    - Want to get trillion hashes? Fine, no problem, we have more...

    That's simple way how to get in only people who want to use it as currency as there is no way to artificially increase value of hash.
    But, those cryptos we have around, all are susceptible to greed hijacking and most of them are hijacked.
     
  4. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    Yes, gold is the ultimate example of something being valued almost entirely for its desire value - we literally value it because it's a shiny rock! Out of all tradable commodities, it is the most non-sensical - I can understand the value in something like oil, but gold? Nope.

    Money, in itself, has no intrinsic value. Money derives its value from the goods and services that can be bought with that money (the real wealth in the economy). Currently, Bitcoin has only limited uses as currency, as it's not a universally accepted form of payment. Its current value is primarily based on speculation, and the idea that it could one day serve as a functional currency.

    There are a number of hurdles to overcome before that can happen though, the primary one being scalability. This is one of the reason why Ethereum is being moved over to PoS, and why Bitcoin split last year (Bitcoin Cash is a more scalable version of Bitcoin). Frankly, I don't expect to see Bitcoin being used as currency anytime soon.

    Cryptocurrencies are the most promising alternative system to the current banking system. Currently, money is controlled by private corporations (banks), who are only interested in making money (if you want greed, look no further). There is a reason why the vast majority of money in the money supply is debt money - ideally, money should be created as value (not debt) and be done for the benefit of society, but of course the banks only care about their profits. Debt-based money is also the reason why the national debt is so high, and why almost everyone in society is in debt to the banks (mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, credit lines, etc). The national debt will never be paid off, and society as a whole will always be in debt, due to the way that the fractional-reserve banking system is designed.
     

  5. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz

    Are or were?
     
    k3vst3r likes this.
  6. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    I already covered the scalability issues in my previous post, and how Bitcoin in its current form is not really a viable currency. Also, no bank or central authority is able to take control of Bitcoin, which is the point of a decentralized currency (e.g., they cannot create Bitcoins out of thin air like they can with fiat currency).
     
  7. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    What Bank needs to control volume of "currency" when they can have most of profit coming from transactions? That's what video is about.
    Bitcoin no longer works as designed. It should have scaled up its ability to deliver transactions. Instead hijackers prevented this and "made" separate transaction network.
    Crypto currencies being hijacked left and right. While main concern is inflated external value by greed. Secondary concern is functionality, which may not deliver intended service.
    And there is that another issue not shown properly even in that video. Cost of opening and closing channel. And issue that you want to have money floating in channel (not doing anything) in advance.
    Having channel with $2000 limit open freezes that value for you. How much value will turn into construction blocks for transfer infrastructure of such network? 5~20%?
     
  8. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    This is bordering on a conspiracy theory (hijackers?). There are genuine disagreements within the Bitcoin community about the proper way forward, as there is with most other coins (Ethereum also went through the same thing). Scalability issues have always been there, but it's gotten more exposed as more people get involved, which leads to higher fees and wait times. You don't need "hijackers" to explain any of this.
     
  9. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    Except one Big F*ing Elephant in Room. Bitcoin was designed for scalability, therefore there was never issue to begin with.
    It has been artificially introduced for purpose of "fixing" it by lightning network.

    Is it conspiracy if original design has not been ignored and redesigned for purpose of making money for those who have a lot of money already?
    I mean, you can use Lightning network as source of income too, right? How many bitcoins do you own to open 200 connections with other strong entities? How many bitcoins per connection to ensure, people can use you to complete transaction?
    You see, New design favors strong Exponentially. Banks will eat 99% of all transaction fees, just because they have money to provide virtual infrastructure made of money.

    Do you understand that to establish connection you need just one physical full node which anyone with few 100 bucks can build?
    But to establish virtual and usable connection, you have to actually pour money into that connection equal to upper limit. And do that per each connection.
     
  10. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    The Bitcoin scalability problem is well known (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem) and is due to the block size, something that was decided very early on. You seem to be taking this technical design limitation and putting a conspiratorial spin on it to try to make it look like deliberate sabotage by the banks (based on an obscure conspiracy video).

    If you're so intent on sticking with this, then what was the specific redesign by the "hijackers" that resulted in this problem? What about Ethereum, which also has similar scalability problems? Did the same hijackers infiltrate the Ethereum network as well? If so, provide the evidence.
     

  11. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    You have it right there. You just simply do not understand. Block Size should have been increased long time ago. Instead even minor step from 1MB to 2MB been blocked.
    Today, There should have been 4MB block at least for better transaction performance.

    But hey, if that's too much for you, read actual wiki:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin
    And guess what? BTC transaction time 5~10 minutes. Usual transaction Cost ~$0.05 ~$0.2.
    Compare that to BC with frozen blocksize, time in matter of hours, cost $10+. Satoshi designed solution at start, there was never issue till someone made it an issue.

    I am quite surre that you did not understand described economical mechanics.
    (Are you "investing" into cryptos? You do exhibit symptoms of average investor. You're definitely not user, those tend to understand inner mechanics which are really not very complex.)
     
  12. The Goose

    The Goose Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,848
    Likes Received:
    262
    GPU:
    MSIrtx3070 gaming X
  13. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    LOL, I know all about Bitcoin Cash - I had mentioned it in the past and know all about why it was done. The difference is that, once again, you seem to be using some wild conspiracy theory to try to back up your ridiculous assertion that it was due to hijackers from the big banks, instead of a legitimate difference of opinion within the Bitcoin community.

    I'm still waiting for your proof of the hijacker conspiracy.
     
  14. k3vst3r

    k3vst3r Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,559
    Likes Received:
    100
    GPU:
    KP3090 G9 240Hz
    It's why Bitcoin cash exists 8MB block size an repels everything blockstream is attempting to do aka segwit/lightning network nodes.
     
  15. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    1st) People behind bitcoin decided that Bitcoin which did not have bad mechanisms driving banking industry is going to adopt them.
    2nd) Mechanism they adopted greatly favors rich over poor. Making rich richer, and poor poorer.

    Why would anyone do that? One must be either stupid to do that or must belong to group which benefits from such changes.
    You can create mathematical model of Lightning Network. And there, passive rich entity can eat every single moving value till none is left. In the end those big players will have everything.
     

  16. BangTail

    BangTail Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    1,099
    GPU:
    EVGA 2080 Ti XC
    Why is their site still up and still showing products available for purchase?

    I had heard they were bankrupt, they were a shoddy company with lousy service, but I am still a little perturbed by the fact that their site appears to be operational even as I type.
     
  17. D3M1G0D

    D3M1G0D Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    GPU:
    2 x GeForce 1080 Ti
    This is nothing but speculation and conjecture. The 1 MB block limit was set by Nakamoto and is the consensus - changing this would be considered a deviation of the original design, which is why the community is reluctant to do it (of course Bitcoin Cash did end up happening, but was a hard fork). The requirement of a consensus makes it so that a small group of hijackers won't be able to influence the direction of the network.

    For your conspiracy theory to work, you'd need a very large number of "hijackers" to make sure that a consensus towards a larger block did not happen. This would necessarily mean that a good majority of those in charge of Bitcoin would have to be hijackers and/or in on the conspiracy! Imagine that! XD

    Like all conspiracy theories, this is ludicrous, at best.
     
  18. k3vst3r

    k3vst3r Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,559
    Likes Received:
    100
    GPU:
    KP3090 G9 240Hz
    How long before Bitcoin cash overtakes bitcoin core as number one coin though?
     
  19. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,809
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    GPU:
    6900XT+AW@240Hz
    So, what was original limit? 32MB
    What is called 1MB limit? "Temporary anti-spam."
    What was planned block size evolution? "To accommodate given needs at time."

    In other words saying: "The 1 MB block limit was set by Nakamoto and is the consensus - changing this would be considered a deviation of the original design" makes you look ...

    I am done here, at least go read basic wiki.
     
  20. k3vst3r

    k3vst3r Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,559
    Likes Received:
    100
    GPU:
    KP3090 G9 240Hz
    Remember when bitcoin launched back in 2009 not everyone's internet was that great, so going beyond 1MB limit wasn't really feasible. My understanding is blocksize remained low so to keep storage and bandwidth requirements lower until infrastructure was more robust.
     

Share This Page